cman:If I may be so bold to speak up, if you must greenlight Town Hall links, can you admins please add some humor to the headline? That is what Fark is supposed to be, ya know. This isnt strange "not news" like a pilot crashing his plane while mooning another; this is just some petty bullshiat crying

You mean the headline wasn't intended to be funny?Wow, Poe's Law in action.

P.S. What is radical moral relativism? I'm a Democrat, so I may as well find out what I believe in.And how does it relate to chronic moral relativism?

Talondel:At least the democrats were honest enough to leave all the bullshiat about restoring civil liberties out of their platform this year, unlike 2008 when they put in a bunch of promises they had no intention of keeping. Though it's disheartening to know that neither of the two major parties is even willing to pay lip service to the civil libertarians out there.

Carn:Talondel: At least the democrats were honest enough to leave all the bullshiat about restoring civil liberties out of their platform this year, unlike 2008 when they put in a bunch of promises they had no intention of keeping. Though it's disheartening to know that neither of the two major parties is even willing to pay lip service to the civil libertarians out there.

Huh?

Actually the Democrats made a concession to the civil libertarians by including mental health coverage in Obamacare.

Fluorescent Testicle:cman: If I may be so bold to speak up, if you must greenlight Town Hall links, can you admins please add some humor to the headline? That is what Fark is supposed to be, ya know. This isnt strange "not news" like a pilot crashing his plane while mooning another; this is just some petty bullshiat crying

I agree, we shouldn't be commenting in threads like this, it's counterproductive.

I get having a couple of these a day. But there are so many great articles on politics that could go green. I dunno, maybe those more thoughtful pieces don't get as many comments. *shrugs*

Great insightful articles make people feel dumb, or can threaten their prejudices, so they go to other sites where they aren't exposed to anything more intelligent than they are. The greater the number of readers/money you want, the stupider the things you need to link to.

If the Democrats believe in the welfare state, that can't possibly be nihilist, can it? As I recall nihilists believe in nothing, and the welfare state is definitely a thing. Even "moral relativism" assumes that there are standards of morality that need to be respected.

Talondel:At least the democrats were honest enough to leave all the bullshiat about restoring civil liberties out of their platform this year, unlike 2008 when they put in a bunch of promises they had no intention of keeping. Though it's disheartening to know that neither of the two major parties is even willing to pay lip service to the civil libertarians out there.

Fart_Machine:FarkedOver: Well the first one was such a smashing success!

So who is their bootsrappy producer going to blame when this part fails too?

And it's three farking parts. I guess they dedicate one film just to John Galt's speech.

Yeah, the first one was a complete flop. The very making of the sequel seems somewhat at odds with the "philosophy" it espouses, if one can call the ravings of a scarred 4-year-old's intellect trapped in the body of a sociopathic obsessive compulsive harpy a "philosophy"...

Fart_Machine:FarkedOver: Well the first one was such a smashing success!

So who is their bootsrappy producer going to blame when this part fails too?

And it's three farking parts. I guess they dedicate one film just to John Galt's speech.

I love the idea of the Randians considering themselves "modern Atlases." Since Atlas was condemned to stand on the Gaia (the Earth) and hold Uranus (the heavens) on his shoulders. So whenever a Randian considers themselves an Atlas, I think "Well, you have a point, you've already got Uranus between your shoulders."

cubic_spleen:Since Fark now allows links from some mainstream Republican sites like Townhall, American Thinker, Breitbart, Free Republic, National Review Online, and Fox News, why don't the mods let us link to other mainstream Republican sites like Stormfront.org? Seems kind of, I don't know...arbitrary.

If the mods are going to promote some mainstream Republican sites, seems like they should promote all of them, including StormFront. After all, the Tea Partiers want to be heard, too. And with Obama likely to win in November, the Republicans will need as much publicity as they can get.

Arkanaut:If the Democrats believe in the welfare state, that can't possibly be nihilist, can it? As I recall nihilists believe in nothing, and the welfare state is definitely a thing. Even "moral relativism" assumes that there are standards of morality that need to be respected.

oh what's really gonna keep you awake at nights is wondering how the GOP manages to reconcile their professed believe in Christ with their hatred of the sick and poor.

KarmicDisaster:I think that most Democrats would be perfectly fine with getting rid of the welfare states, so bring it on.

That's what I don't get. If federal spending was set so that states could only take back what they put in...or, taking it further, federal taxes were slashed such that states could only fund themselves...it's the GOP states that would suffer the most, by a landslide. Just goes to show that the GOP's supporters in the lower ranks of society are indeed useful idiots. Very useful, and very very idiotic.

Is there anyone who can explain exactly why not explicitly saying "Jerusalem is forever the capital of Israel" and the number of mentions of God are important? I see lots of people pointing indignantly at these "obvious mistakes", but nobody who seems to have any ability to articulate what exactly is negative here.

Why should I (or anyone who isn't Israeli) care what a US political party thinks about where the capital should be located?

How many mentions of God does a platform have to have exactly? What does having fewer than that number mean?

Rapmaster2000:I've been told by someone who does this that they like it because "it sticks it to the libs". It's like when a sports fan has a lame pet name for a rival like A&M saying "TU" instead of UT because they think it really sticks it to the Longhorns.

Considering that the insult is coming from someone who can't build a campfire without killing a dozen people, it's a great analogy.

Fluorescent Testicle:Talondel: At least the democrats were honest enough to leave all the bullshiat about restoring civil liberties out of their platform this year, unlike 2008 when they put in a bunch of promises they had no intention of keeping. Though it's disheartening to know that neither of the two major parties is even willing to pay lip service to the civil libertarians out there.

Marriage equality doesn't count as a civil liberty to you?

It does, and I'm pleased about that much. But I'm referring to this from 2008:

As we combat terrorism, we must not sacrifice the American values we are fighting to protect. In recent years, we've seen an Administration put forward a false choice between the liberties we cherish and the security we demand. The Democratic Party rejects this dichotomy. We will restore our constitutional traditions, and recover our nation's founding commitment to liberty under law.

(1) We support constitutional protections and judicial oversight on any surveillance program involving Americans. (2) We will review the current Administration's warrantless wiretapping program. (3) We reject illegal wiretapping of American citizens, wherever they live.

(4) We reject the use of national security letters to spy on citizens who are not suspected of a crime. (5) We reject the tracking of citizens who do nothing more than protest a misguided war. (6) We reject torture. (7) We reject sweeping claims of "inherent" presidential power. (8) We will revisit the Patriot Act and overturn unconstitutional executive decisions issued during the past eight years. (9) We will not use signing statements to nullify or undermine duly enacted law. (10) And we will ensure that law-abiding Americans of any origin, including Arab-Americans and Muslim-Americans, do not become the scapegoats of national security fears.

Vodka Zombie:Whenever I see someone use the term "Democrat party" or its equivalent, it's like a beacon demonstrating that whoever wrote or spoke that is simply not worth talking to because they are nothing more than a sluggish, little troll.

This is America, Subby. We speak English here.

Not really. Not anymore. Got turned down for a cashier job a few months ago 'cause I didn't speak Spanish.

Talondel:Fluorescent Testicle: Talondel: At least the democrats were honest enough to leave all the bullshiat about restoring civil liberties out of their platform this year, unlike 2008 when they put in a bunch of promises they had no intention of keeping. Though it's disheartening to know that neither of the two major parties is even willing to pay lip service to the civil libertarians out there.

Marriage equality doesn't count as a civil liberty to you?

It does, and I'm pleased about that much. But I'm referring to this from 2008:

As we combat terrorism, we must not sacrifice the American values we are fighting to protect. In recent years, we've seen an Administration put forward a false choice between the liberties we cherish and the security we demand. The Democratic Party rejects this dichotomy. We will restore our constitutional traditions, and recover our nation's founding commitment to liberty under law.

(1) We support constitutional protections and judicial oversight on any surveillance program involving Americans. (2) We will review the current Administration's warrantless wiretapping program. (3) We reject illegal wiretapping of American citizens, wherever they live.

(4) We reject the use of national security letters to spy on citizens who are not suspected of a crime. (5) We reject the tracking of citizens who do nothing more than protest a misguided war. (6) We reject torture. (7) We reject sweeping claims of "inherent" presidential power. (8) We will revisit the Patriot Act and overturn unconstitutional executive decisions issued during the past eight years. (9) We will not use signing statements to nullify or undermine duly enacted law. (10) And we will ensure that law-abiding Americans of any origin, including Arab-Americans and Muslim-Americans, do not become the scapegoats of national security fears.

Just Another OC Homeless Guy:Vodka Zombie: Whenever I see someone use the term "Democrat party" or its equivalent, it's like a beacon demonstrating that whoever wrote or spoke that is simply not worth talking to because they are nothing more than a sluggish, little troll.

This is America, Subby. We speak English here.

Not really. Not anymore. Got turned down for a cashier job a few months ago 'cause I didn't speak Spanishas many languages as others who were also applying for the job.

qorkfiend:How do you think this would compare to a McCain administration or a Romney administration?

I think it's irrelevant, given that neither McCain or Romney have ever been or are likely to be president. If they somehow do take power, I'll criticize their positions on civil liberties just like I did with Bush. Has the current administration been better than Bush? Yes, and it's also been better than Stalin, but that's also a completely pointless comparison. The fact is that both parties are completely useless on civil liberties, to the point where the Democrats don't even feel like it's a lie they should stick with. Unlike say, the Republicans promises from 2000 to be fiscally responsible and restore limited government, which were also abject failures, but at least those are lies they still pretend they might someday keep.

Both parties are bad, so stop pretending otherwise and hold your nose while you vote for one of them, or vote for Gary Johnson.

magusdevil:Just Another OC Homeless Guy: Vodka Zombie: Whenever I see someone use the term "Democrat party" or its equivalent, it's like a beacon demonstrating that whoever wrote or spoke that is simply not worth talking to because they are nothing more than a sluggish, little troll.

This is America, Subby. We speak English here.

Not really. Not anymore. Got turned down for a cashier job a few months ago 'cause I didn't speak Spanish as many languages as others who were also applying for the job.

Well, no. The reason given is that they already had 4 employees who only spoke Spanish, so they needed someone who could communicate with them.

Talondel:qorkfiend: How do you think this would compare to a McCain administration or a Romney administration?

I think it's irrelevant, given that neither McCain or Romney have ever been or are likely to be president. If they somehow do take power, I'll criticize their positions on civil liberties just like I did with Bush. Has the current administration been better than Bush? Yes, and it's also been better than Stalin, but that's also a completely pointless comparison. The fact is that both parties are completely useless on civil liberties, to the point where the Democrats don't even feel like it's a lie they should stick with. Unlike say, the Republicans promises from 2000 to be fiscally responsible and restore limited government, which were also abject failures, but at least those are lies they still pretend they might someday keep.

Both parties are bad, so stop pretending otherwise and hold your nose while you vote for one of them, or vote for Gary Johnson.

False equivalency at its finest. You just acknowledged a moment ago that they had fulfilled several of their campaign promises on civil liberties. The fact that they did not do so on some of the more pressing matters, which you happen to care strongly about (as do I), does not make them equivalent to the party that would have done nothing about any of them, and has a very large portion of its base supporting a harder turn towards fascism in the name of patriotism.